tv [untitled] July 7, 2011 6:00pm-6:30pm PDT
factual findings was taken off calendar due to a lack of quorum. for the record that has been removed. with reference to the remaining portions of our closed session, do i have a motion regarding disclosure? >> i motion that we not disclose. >> hearing no public comment, please call the next item. >> next item is number eight. adjournment. >> do i have a motion? >> i would like to move to adjourn. congratulations. >> congratulations, chief. in honor of 30 years of service, i want to thank you for serving as chief. thank you for your 30 years. do we have a second? we have a second. with that in mind, we adjourn. thank you very much.
supervisor mirkarimi: welcome to the public safety committee. to my right is malia cohen and to my left, david campos. joining us is president david chiu. please read the first item. >> item 1. resolution authorizing the san francisco department of public health to retroactively accept and expend a grant in the amount of $205,000 from department of justice to fund the project entitled "san francisco
community justice center intensive outpatient program" 2010, through september 30, 2011. supervisor mirkarimi: is there anybody here that would like to present on that? thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. the item before you is accept and expend in the amount of $205,000 to create some of infrastructure development in the it fold at the community justice center. department of public health was successful in applying a solicitation to the federal government to create a program on site at the community justice center. as a result of that application, we were invited to apply for a supplemental on one of money to use for development at the
community justice center. these funds will greatly enhance our ability to develop and create and install a wide network connectivity in the facility, as well as workstation connectivity, as well as assist us in accessing data with our criminal justice partners. if you have any questions, i am here to answer any that you may have. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. it said that years two and three are also part of the program. does the funding extend into those two years as well? >> because this is mostly infrastructure creation, the bulk of the expenses will be expense of all over the first fiscal year. and we have an additional amount with regards to maintenance,
$47,000 in year two, $48,000 in year three. this is just a one time thing. supervisor mirkarimi: very good. colleagues, questions or comments? supervisor campos: thank you for being here, everybody. just a question about the retroactivity of the item. i understand the grand award was awarded in november 2010. >> there were two parts to the grant application. the first part was submitted in september to the federal government. we were not technically invited to apply for a supplemental amount until later. for whatever reason, the fed's decided to include in the funding cycle, however, we did
not received official notification that we had received this grant until mid- may. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. is there any member of the public that would like to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, entertain a motion. supervisor campos: move forward with recommendations. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. item two. >> i did ttem 2. hearing on the status of the implementation of justis, a project to consolidate the city's criminal justice data. supervisor mirkarimi: i know that this is something that many of us were hoping to get an update on, given the and upgrade of the justice program. thank you for president to for facilitating this hearing today.
>> i want to thank the members of the public and members of the aqaba to talk about the justis project. let me provide some background to our colleagues and the public. we have a number of presentations from folks about where exactly we are. today's hearing is about the status of implementation of an i.t. project that has had a tortured history. the justice -- justis project began in 1941997. the project's purpose was to track cases and to allow for the sharing of data among various criminal justice departments. the current a antiquated system uses technology dating back to 1974. this is technology with numerous problems, including the inability to search for the case histories of the beds were to
route -- reduce report quickly. the lack of any data into the system has tied the hands of our law enforcement agencies in difficult and significant ways. the justice system was supposed to be put in place by 2001. as we know, in 2000, there was a victim of domestic violence, a murder. hurd beth was likely preventable, had a criminal history -- heard debt was likely preventable, had a history of her suspect been shared between departments. in 2002, the commission on the status of women produced a report that recommended a variety of improvements, including the development of this system. at the time, $6 million had been spent on the justis project.
that was nine years ago. in 2007, the report that i am holding reviewed the project. that report slammed city government forbade the mismanaging this long and overdue project. among the findings, it found the project lacked strong budget management, project management, or executive leadership of the mayor's office of criminal justice. in 2010, the justice project -- justis project had expanded. i have heard that we have spent about $22 million. i have yet to give precise figures. in the first in months of 2010, the project had four leaders at the department of technology, but we never were told when the end date on the project would happen. last year, we held a hearing in
march, to ask for a status update. we were told that progress was being made and the project would be completed. obviously, it is now july of 2011. several months ago, the border supervisors approved an amendment that trend for the administration and implementation of the justice program from the department of technology to the city administrator's office and gave the minister direct control of oversight. it is my understanding that over the past six months we have had quite a bit of progress on this project, and i requested today's hearing so that we could understand how we arrived at where we are today, after 14 years and tens of millions of dollars over budget, as well as to learn about the progress and reject the hopefuls to completion. this is not just the budgetary issue. this is not just a law
enforcement issue. this data system that we need to put in place we need to do so we can save lives. we have a number of folks who will present today. first, we will hear from linda young from the city administrator's office. she will be followed by eileen hurst, the justis co- chair. i also know that we have representatives from the police department, d.a.'s office, and superior courts to answer questions. ms. young, please make your presentation. >> thank you for this opportunity to be before you today. i am the deputy city administrator. i ago a lot of the comments that the supervisors book about. this is an important project for the citizens to save lives. when this project was moved over, we convened a government council, and that that with each member of those departments.
they are here in the audience. i want to acknowledge the team behind you, who is committed to moving this project forward. it is the city it this triggers office including the acting city it minister, the sheriff's department, the court + executive officer is with us, the district attorney, adult probation public defender's office, department of status of women, police department, and the part of technology are here to answer any questions today. if you have any questions, please let me know. justis tracking information is justice. what it will do -- justis tracking information system will replace the 35-year
old mainframe system. it is called the court management system. it will integrate all of the city and county criminal-justice agencies case management systems. it will allow each department to develop its own case management system, allow each department to gather and share information, secure with each other automatically through a centralized hub, and result in a more efficient criminal justice information center. the program has had numerous changes of sponsorship and management. in the past, held that the mayor's office of criminal justice as well as the department of technology. in 2003, the program was reorganized with its own governance structure and the government's council and technical steering committee was formed. at the department level, we had multiple changes in either
department heads or technical staff. the transfer function occurred in january 2011 when the mayor asked the board to amend the administrative code and the board unanimously approved that in march. that gave city administrator direct control justis program and continue to ask for technical support from dt. from a program organization point of view, the yellow box here is the executive sponsor. we provide oversight and operational decisions. the justice governance council provides budget decision making. the green box here shows the members. the sheriff's department is a co-chair, adult probation department status of women, the
attorney, the emergency management, to the provision, mayor's office, please come out of the tender, superior court, and the department technology as a non-voting member. weekly, the technical steering committee meets in we reviewed financial and technical issues. from a project manager point of view, we have two people here to answer questions. i know this is a busy chart, but this is what the court management system is, the old, and acquitted mainframe system is causing all of this information. if you look at the little box, this is the kind of information it is housing right that it it has court case information, district attorney assignment and caseload.
for the public defender, court calendars, court case information, public defenders assigned its and caseload. for the sheriff's, it tell them about the people and where they can the house, where they can be transported so they can appear before the court. this system is now being replaced, and this is the justis program that if i could explain the coloring. green means it has been complete. yet no is in progress. red means it is pending. blue is face to, where we have not identified funding for those portions. when we talk about the case management system table, it is the screen box here. that is now connected to the hub and sharing information as that information is being connected, for example, to the sheriff's
department. add green mind and it is connected to the hub and the share of is receiving and sending information through that hot as we speak. where we are focusing our efforts next are the yellow lines. the department working and case management systems and the justice program needs to connect those departments to the hub so not only is the sheriff and district attorney's office getting information, so the public defender, adult probation, and all the apartments are hooked up. from a program point of view, after the transfer of functions, we move the budget and staff. staff is now in a secure location separate from other city staff, so they can emerge from this public safety issue with confidence. be completed two rounds of recruitment.
this project was that to have eight members. when the project was transferred to us, we only have four. we have had two recruitment about one internal promotion of a very good staff person who has been working on the project since day one. we have also moved the new data center without incident. the hub and mainframe is in production with no missed court calendars and data quality has improved. we will show you an example of that, when the sheriff's department talks about their programs. this is the look going forward. what we would like to do with the state department's corp. in the next six months is winning to increase the capacity for development and production. this is critical. we need to connect to the court system for testing to the hot by year's end.
mike's team has been meeting with us weekly to make this happen. we also need to upgrade the sheriff's the jail management system, assist the district attorney's implementation of their subpoena module, connect the public defender's case to the hub, assess the police department of support requests for their crime data warehouse. in the next six months, this is our commitment to getting the job done. over the next 12 months, we will focus on cordray with the police department to provide data on domestic violence crimes to the department of status of women. we will work with an adult probation and their vendor to connect their case management system and connected hub. finally, we want to create city-
wide reports, which you mentioned. one of them would be using vacation data so that we confine the persistent offenders. i am here to answer any questions you have. aileen also has a presentation for you. >> i am sure we all have questions. maybe she should do the presentation first. >> i was the one stumbling with the page is coming here for linda. just a couple of items to address immediately for you. if there is budget information that you have not gone in the past, it your staff can get that to the back, we will make sure that you can get that budget information. >> what is the overall budget for this project? it has moved every year. >> what happens is, there has
never been any separation between the development budget and the ongoing operations and maintenance budget. so we have not gotten any new funds related to development for a couple of years now. every budget that we have gotten in the past couple of years has been budget to pay it for the ongoing maintenance of the system, maintaining the system. we will do the best we can to separate the two out for you so you get an accurate picture of how much it development opposed to ongoing maintenance. >> can i suggest, this is not as comfortable that we do not have information on what the budget is. we have been asking about this for months and this is part of what the hearing is about. we expect to have this information. i am sorry it is not here. unless anyone else has a different answer.
>> good morning, supervisors. eileen hearst. i have been co-chair of the justice council since the reorganization effort in i do not know exactly how that happened except, during that time, we had four police chiefs, three public defenders, 3 digit attorneys, the three heads of adult probation, but only one sheriff. i think i was kept there for purposes of continuity. i do want to address supervisor chiu, your remarks in the beginning. the report that you're holding up is three pages of harvey rose, 320 pages response put together by walt and myself. a great deal of that response, which goes point by point
through mr. rose's remarks, includes the documentation for the justis effort. from the beginning of the reorganized effort in 2003, we have documented every process, every decision, every dollar spent. i completely understand your request for specificity about the budget. that is not my area of expertise. but i can tell you, it is not correct that justice is tens of millions of dollars over budget. more than that, our problem is, we have not been able to spend the budget because we have not been able to get staff at dt who are prepared to many of the tasks required to bring the system forward faster. for example, the sheriff's
department finished it jail management system in 2007. it was not until late 2009 that we're actually able to bring it alive. took that long for the hub to be completed. during that time, there was not very much money spend, because our system had been budgeted for and completed. there was not staff to complete the hub. that has plagued the project more than the mismanagement or lack of money. i am happy to work with walt or that the's staff to bring you better -- walt's staff to bring you better numbers. >> i appreciate the comments, but when i read the budget analyst report and it said that in 1997, it presented the
director with $925,000 for the rapid development of a cms replacement plan, and then it states, the fiscal year 2007- 2008, a product will have cost more than $5.5 million. it is difficult for us here to draw any other conclusions. >> exactly. i have seen that in the report. i am speaking about it -- before i was closely involved, 1997 -- that was the initial funding to bring in a consultant to the that the project and to preliminary work on it. that was not the final justis budget that would fund all of the case management systems through each of the member departments and would build the hub.
less than a million dollars is not, in anyone's imagination, enough to buy a case management system, install them, and build a hub. those numbers are out there and they are constantly compared and we should do a better job of providing you with accuracy on what this has cost. >> i appreciate that, but in 1997, i do think that that would have brought new a bid. who is in charge here? if not the city of visitors of this or you, the co-chair of justis? >> over the years, it has followed this path. the original design of the governance of justis was that the mayor's office of criminal justice would perform the budget tracking function.
the member departments, in an unprecedented move, agreed to have all of their individual i.t. budgets consolidated in one place that would be managed and controlled by the mayor's office of criminal justice. we have talked about the history of that office over the answering -- ensuing years. but it then moved over to the budget of technology, which was not a solution that satisfied anybody. in this context, they were the vendor of record. therefore, having the vendor of record who is charged with completing the project also in charge of the project is not a very good set up. however, they continued budget tracking. the budget presides in general city obligation. now it is managed again by the
city administrator's office. >> so the city administrators of this is ultimately responsible. we look forward to getting that information. what is the end date projected? it is not clear from this report. this young, if you want to answer that, that would be great. >> i do not have a clear date. i am trying to get through phase one. i am sorry. i literally inherited this project. i would tell you what i know. we know the case management systems at individual departments have been funded. we are working with them to connect to the hub. my plan for this fiscal year is to get as many of the departments, including the police department, on board. once that phase is over, i see it at the end of the project. the program, which is different
from the project, certain operational functions that have to continue. maintaining the hub, mainframe, we will always have a few staff around to do that. >> so how do you intend on making sure the project gets done? >> part of the resources, originally intended to have eight staff people. when we inherited the project, it only had four. in the last six months, we have increased by two. i now have people who can do things for our program that we do not need to rely on dt. >> but as far as cutting an actual end date. you need to still higher four people and then you will have a sense of what we can complete the project? >> i think if i got one more
person, and i got the full cooperation of all the departments, within a year, we should have -- the only one i am not sure about is the police department. theirs is a big system. everyone else, i am confident we can have connected to the hub, with dt's help, to maintain capacity. >> i would assume that what she is saying is actually going to happen by the end of the year, unless one of you wants to tell us otherwise. of course, we are open to hearing that. what is typical from our standpoint is, there are so many departments working on this, the accountability has been difficult to manage. we will assume maybe this will get that over the next year. >> i would love to come